Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall Reviews

One of the most valuable features is having the ability to cluster multiple firewalls even if they are different versions.

It's a complicated firewall. Until you come to know the firewall inducers, most people don't like the firewall because the components for it are a little bit complex. User-friendliness is a little bit tough. It needs to be more user-friendly when creating policies, and pushing policies. Committing takes more time compared to Palo Alto.

The solution needs to invest in its GUI. The interface is very bad and not user-friendly.

It's a stable firewall. There's no issue on the stability. When it comes to the detection rate of the IP, it is the most powerful solution for detection-ready tests, like evasion techniques etc. Forcepoint is a leader on the market.

The solution is very simple to scale. You just need to keep on adding devices. The firewall can cluster with multiple different models. Scalability-wise, this firewall will be the best firewall for an organization who is operating with a low budget. We typically implement for medium-sized to enterprise-level organizations.

Technical support is okay. It takes too long to get a response because the support comes directly from the Netherlands, and they may have very limited employees. The engineers are quite technical, but the response is very slow.

The initial setup is complex.

We are an integrator that helps with the installation.

The initial installation needs a high level of knowledge because it's not like other firewalls where you have one single appliance. You need to have a separate machine to manage the firewall. The firewall is just a dummy device and all the configurations are done on a Windows machine. Sometimes, in the case of the unavailability of a Windows machine, you cannot do much with the firewall.

What others need to know is that they need to have a clear idea of why they're going for this particular firewall. They need to know if are they looking for clustering or if are they looking for link load balancing. If they're not going for clustering, I would suggest they go with the most moderate firewalls like Palo Alto or Fortinet.

A certain type of attack, such as evasion techniques, isn't something that other firewalls really protect against. According to NSS Labs, Forcepoint firewall has been on top for the last consecutive four or so years because of the detection rate of evasion techniques that other firewalls failed to detect.  

The clustering of our ISP links is a nice feature that other firewalls also should have. It is a helpful feature, but it is not a user-friendly solution as a whole.

I would rate the solution five out of ten. User-friendliness is the most important reason I've rated it so low. After Cisco firewalls, no next-gen firewalls have come to the market. So if they want to compete with these firewalls, they need to enhance the overall user-friendliness of the solution.

Integrated multi-layer filtering

McAfee NSP helps the organization by filtering most of the active inbound attacks that would otherwise compromise the users and servers. It's automated and fast response allow the organization to leave it as it is and apply automated updates to its signature.

Intel could ditch the Java-based GUI rendering and could use some serious revamp on the way they manage their GUI. A lot of bugs happen on their GUI but their system is working fine.

Forcepoint could make the interface more reasonable and easier to navigate. If you are not good at Forcepoint, you cannot easily manage it. Fortinet is easy to navigate and reach.

Forcepoint should focus on upgrades. Sometimes, service is impacted or disrupted after an upgrade. You have to read the release notes carefully before doing anything.

I have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for three years.

Four years ago, I called support. Their response was very bad, but the antivirus was good.

Fortinet is better because it is very easy to manage. For Forcepoint, you need someone to dive into GUI or make some changes in the configuration, navigate, etc.

The initial setup is complex with the NG firewall compared to Fortinet. You can manage it easily by doing some virtual context and trying to divide the solution. You need experience for that. You have to do some lab to do something to prepare.

The product is not expensive.

I recommend Fortinet. Fortinet is booming now, but it is expensive. Both have pros and cons. You can compare both with Palo Alto. Palo Alto is more stable and more scalable. Forcepoint has many more features than Fortinet.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.

The solution offers sandboxing, which can be integrated at any time.

Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall could change its interface, allowing standard or direct connect modes to be configured. While group design and configuration generally function well, there are issues related to OSSL. These issues may necessitate troubleshooting that involves accessing hidden features by adjusting product routes. This level of troubleshooting is currently restricted to technical personnel, not partners or customers.

I have been using Forcepoint Next Generation Firewall for a few years.

Technical support is good outside Egypt.

Neutral

I have tried FortiGate, Palo Alto, and Symantec. We switched to Forcepoint because it is easy to manage and troubleshoot.

The product is expensive but cheaper than Cisco.

Overall, I rate the solution a six out of ten.